Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33717284›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2018

When Giants Meet-a Discourse on Contemporary and Alternative Therapy Use from an Ethical Perspective.

Cindy Shiqi Zhu, Wee Lee Chan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cindy Shiqi Zhu *Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9569-3695
Wee Lee Chan *Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, Singapore.
Duke-NUS Medical School · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Singapore's multicultural society, a sizable proportion of the population subscribes to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In this article, we discuss the impact this has on medical practice in the context of the four principles of medical ethics. To uphold the principle of autonomy, we propose a non-judgmental approach towards patients who use CAM. Nevertheless, in order to promote health (beneficence) and prevent harm (non-maleficence), the safety profiles of CAM must be studied through systematic research. In addition, the principle of justice is one concerned with the fair distribution of scarce healthcare resources, while granting equal access to healthcare regardless of beliefs. Understanding CAM from an ethical perspective allows for the provision of safe, holistic, and culturally relevant care.

Indexed as

Complementary and alternative medicineEthical perspectiveEthicsMedical ethicsTraditional Chinese medicine (TCM)Traditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID33717284
PMCPMC7747253
OpenAlexW2884684864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.